Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving his truck one evening when he collided with another vehicle, leading that car to launch into the air and land on another person’s car. One person was killed in the crash. After the crash, investigators drew blood from the defendant three times and found each time that his blood alcohol level was significantly above the .08 concentration, which serves as the threshold number for a person to be charged with driving under the influence.

After a jury trial, the defendant was sentenced to prison terms totaling 13.5 years. He promptly appealed his convictions and sentences.

more The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have suppressed the first of the three blood draws. The defendant referenced his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. According to the defendant, the law enforcement officer did not have enough evidence to suspect that the defendant was intoxicated, so he should not have been allowed to draw his blood. What’s more, said the defendant, the officer conducted the blood draw without a warrant, and the blood draw lacked any medical purpose. For these reasons, the evidence of a high blood alcohol concentration that came from the blood draw should have been suppressed.

The court disagreed with the defendant’s conclusion that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. An officer at trial testified that the defendant appeared as though he was intoxicated at the time of the crash – he smelled of alcohol, spoke with slurred words, and had bloodshot eyes. The defendant’s speed at the time of the crash was 70 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone, giving officers further reason to suspect that he might have been intoxicated. Thus, said the court, the officers had plenty of reason to think that alcohol could have been a contributing factor to the crash, and the blood draw was reasonably executed.

Given that the court found no infringement on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, the defendant’s appeal was denied and his sentences were affirmed.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is fighting DUI charges in the state of Arizona, call our team at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We understand what it takes to make sure you have the best chance possible of defending yourself and fighting for your freedom. We are committed to prioritizing your needs and to being with you every step of the way. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us an online message to have your questions answered.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant entered an intersection without stopping at a stop sign and while traveling over the posted speed limit. As the defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection, it struck an SUV that had the right-of-way. There were three passengers in the defendant’s vehicle. One died, and two others were seriously injured. The driver and two passengers in the SUV were also injured.

The defendant, who was also injured in the accident, was taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, a detective hand-cuffed the defendant to the hospital bed and unsuccessfully attempted to interview him. Later, as the detective was out of view but within earshot, he heard the defendant tell a nurse that he had taken methamphetamine earlier in the day.

A bit later, police officers obtained a warrant to take the defendant’s blood. The blood test results confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in the defendant’s blood.

The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress, arguing that the statement he made to the nurse should not be introduced at trial. The trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted the defendant, and he then appealed.

On appeal, the defendant again argued in support of his motion to suppress. However, the court rejected the defendant’s argument. The court did not look at the merits of the defendant’s motion, however, holding that any error in introducing his statement into evidence was harmless in light of the fact that the chemical test results indicated the presence of methamphetamine in his blood.

Interestingly, the court noted that the defendant did not claim that his statement to the nurse was used to obtain the warrant to obtain his blood. Had the defendant made such a claim, it is possible the outcome could have been different.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI crime, contact the Law Offices of James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a veteran criminal defense attorney with significant experience handling all types of DUI cases, ranging from first-time offenses to very serious DUI accident cases. With his help, you can rest assured that you are in good hands. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the allegations you face, give the Law Offices of James Novak a call at 480-413-1499 today. Attorney Novak offers all prospective clients a free consultation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a trooper pulled over the defendant for following another vehicle too closely. Upon observing the defendant, the trooper believed the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and requested he consent to a blood draw. The defendant denied the request, and the trooper then obtained a warrant to draw the defendant’s blood. Ultimately, the defendant was arrested for DUI.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant presented evidence showing that the trooper who arrested him resigned during an investigation into alleged misconduct during the trooper’s DUI arrests. Evidently, the trooper faced allegations that he “arrested suspects without probable cause and filed reports containing false information.” The defendant also presented evidence that the trooper included the wrong date and time on the paperwork he generated related to the defendant’s arrest. The defendant argued that these facts, viewed together, cast doubt on the reliability of what the trooper claimed he observed.

The trial court rejected the defendant’s motion, and the defendant was ultimately convicted of DUI. The defendant then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion. The court explained that, while the state carries the ultimate burden to show that a traffic stop was legal, the defendant must first establish a prima facie case supporting the suppression of the evidence. Here, however, the court concluded that the defendant failed to present a prima facie case of suppression.

The court held that, while the investigation into the trooper’s conduct may have cast some doubt over the reliability of his observations, the defendant did not “establish irrebuttable evidence the trooper’s stated basis for arresting him lacked credibility.” The court explained that it was up to the trial judge to weigh the credibility of the trooper, and it was not up to the appellate court to review that credibility decision. The court was also unconcerned about the trooper including the wrong date and time, explaining that it was akin to a typographical error.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona drunk driving offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI offenses, including those challenging the legality of an Arizona traffic stop. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing a process called “retrograde extrapolation” by which a chemist can estimate what a person’s BAC was at a specific time by looking at what their BAC was at a later time. The process is used by prosecutors to estimate what a defendant’s BAC would be at the time they were driving. Prosecutors will especially rely on this technique when they were unable to take a defendant’s blood within the two-hour time frame

According to the court’s opinion, witnesses observed the defendant get into a car accident between 4 and 6 p.m. After the accident, the witnesses noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol and seemed off balance. Police officers arrived on the scene at 8 p.m, and the defendant’s blood was taken at 9 p.m. The results indicated that the defendant’s BAC was .336. Because the defendant’s blood was not taken until between three to five hours after the accident, prosecutors called an expert witness to explain the concept of retrograde extrapolation, and provide the jury an estimate of the defendant’s BAC at the time of the accident.

The defendant was ultimately found guilty, and appealed the admissibility of the retrograde extrapolation evidence. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the evidence was not relevant because the specific statute he was charged with violating did not require proof of a certain BAC, and only required the prosecution to show that he was generally impaired.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument, finding that the retrograde extrapolation evidence was relevant to the question as to whether the defendant was under the influence at the time of the accident. The court noted that law provides that, once the prosecution provides evidence that a motorist had a BAC of more than .08, there is a presumption that the motorist was intoxicated. Here, the court held that the evidence was relevant because it helped establish that the defendant’s BAC was over .08 at the time he was driving.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI Offense?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe DUI defense attorney with extensive experience defending clients against all types of DUI charges. He is both a skilled litigator and negotiator, which helps him consistently obtain favorable results for his clients. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation to discuss your case with Attorney Novak, call 480-413-1499 today.

Consent is one of the primary ways that law enforcement officers are able to take a motorist’s blood. Under the state and federal constitutions, police officers need to have a warrant before they can conduct a “search” of a person. Courts have held that a blood draw constitutes a search, and thus, police officers need to obtain a warrant before taking a blood sample. However, no warrant is necessary if a motorist provides their consent to the blood draw. And given the administrative penalties associated with refusing to comply with a request for a blood draw, many motorists end up consenting to a blood test.

Providing consent to an Arizona blood draw can raise several issues. Most importantly, consent must be validly given to be effective. In other words, police cannot coerce a motorist into giving their consent by making threats. Additionally, even if a motorist gives consent, they are allowed to change their minds and revoke consent at any time. If consent is revoked, then the police officers must go through the proper channels to obtain a warrant. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued some important decisions which made some significant changes to this area of the law.

The Facts of the Case

Back to the case at hand, the defendant was stopped at a red light as an officer approached. When the light turned green, the defendant crossed the intersection, changing lanes as he did so. The officer began to follow the defendant, who was swerving and speeding. The officer pulled the defendant over, and obtained consent for a blood draw. Officers tried to take the defendant’s blood twice without success, but on the third time, they were able to obtain a sample. At no time did the defendant ask the officers to stop. The results of the blood test indicated that the defendant had methamphetamine in his system.

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the results of the blood test were properly admitted into evidence. The court explained that police officers did not need a warrant because the defendant provided his consent, and never revoked it.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI offense?

If you or a loved one has recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact Attorney James E. Novak for immediate assistance. Attorney Novak is a preeminent Tempe DUI attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona drunk driving cases. As a former prosecutor, Attorney Novak understands how the other side thinks and uses the knowledge to his clients’ advantage. To learn more about how Attorney James Novak can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 28-1381 – DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28-1388 –Blood and Breath Tests

According to the court’s opinion, a state trooper stopped the defendant for following too closely and failing to stay within his lane. While the trooper was interacting with the defendant, he noticed a smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, and that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot. When asked, the defendant admitted to having two drinks, and also that his license was in suspension.

The trooper asked the defendant to get out of the car and performed a series of field sobriety tests. Ultimately, the trooper concluded that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and arrested him for DUI. Another trooper arrived on the scene, and the two discussed bringing the defendant into the station for a breath test. During this conversation, the defendant called for medical assistance because he was having a heart attack and a seizure.

The troopers placed the defendant in one of their cars and transported him to the hospital. At the hospital, nurses took the defendant’s blood for medical purposes. The troopers then obtained a sample of the defendant’s blood so that they could test it for alcohol. As it turns out, the defendant’s blood indicated that his blood-alcohol content (BAC) was .17, more than twice the legal limit.

The state charged the defendant with four counts related to his arrest:

1. Aggravated driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more with a suspended license;
2. Aggravated driving while impaired to the slightest degree with a suspended license;
3. Driving while impaired to the slightest degree; and
4. Driving while under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor with a BAC of 0.15 or more but less than 0.20.

A jury convicted the defendant, and the court sentenced him accordingly. The defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that Double Jeopardy precluded several of the convictions. Ultimately, the court agreed that the defendant could not be guilty of count three if he were found guilty on count two. The court reasoned that these two counts shared all the same elements, with count two requiring the additional fact that the defendant’s license was suspended. Thus, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction on count three, but otherwise affirmed the verdict.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If the state recently charged you with an Arizona DUI offense, you need an effective advocate to stand up for your rights and fight on your behalf. At the Tempe DUI defense practice of James E. Novak, we represent clients who face all types of Arizona DUI crimes, including first-time DUIs and extreme DUIs. To learn more about how we can help you defend against the allegations against you, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 28-1381 – DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28-1382 –Extreme DUI Laws
• Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which discusses blood-draws from unconscious motorists who are suspected of being under the influence. The case is the third U.S. Supreme Court case in recent years to touch on this topic. However, because no five Justices could agree on a single basis for the opinion, technically, the decision is not binding on the lower courts and only impacts the defendant in this case. However, in reality, courts across the country will look to the plurality opinion for guidance.

The facts as the Court described them are as follows: police officers arrested the defendant under suspicion of driving under the influence. Officers took the defendant to the police station to administer a breath test; however, the defendant was too lethargic to complete the test. Because Wisconsin law provides that an unconscious motorist is not capable of withdrawing implied consent, an officer drove the defendant to a hospital for a blood draw. The results of the test indicated the defendant’s blood-alcohol content was over the legal limit, and he was arrested and charged with DUI.

The defendant argued that the unconscious blood-draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the results of the test should be inadmissible. Wisconsin state courts denied the defendant’s motion, and he appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While five Justices agreed that the case should be vacated and remanded, there was not a majority opinion because no five Justices could agree on a rationale. Four Justices (Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh) would hold that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement would generally allow for an unconscious blood-draw unless the defendant could establish “that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties.” Justice Thomas issued a concurrence to the plurality’s judgment in which he explained his rationale for a per se rule that “the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk, regardless of whether the driver is conscious.”

Four Justices dissented from the plurality’s opinion. Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan would have held that because police officers conceded that they had time to get a warrant, they should have done so. Justice Gorsuch would not have decided the case based on exigent-circumstances, because the parties did not raise the exigent-circumstances issue below.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, you need a dedicated and experienced criminal defense attorney who will stand up for your rights. Attorney James E. Novak is a veteran Tempe DUI defense attorney with extensive experience handling all types of Arizona DUI cases. To learn more about how he can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 28-1381 – DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28-1382 –Extreme DUI Laws
• Missouri v. McNeely

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant’s vehicle swerved into oncoming traffic, colliding with another vehicle. The defendant suffered serious injuries in the accident. While police were investigating the accident, they noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. A helicopter took the defendant to a hospital in Nevada.

While in the hospital, Arizona law enforcement called the Nevada hospital and requested they draw the defendant’s blood. The requesting officer did not discuss whether a warrant was necessary, but later testified that he did not believe it was his responsibility to obtain a warrant. The hospital complied with the request without obtaining a warrant. At the time, the defendant was unconscious. The sample was given to a Nevada law enforcement officer. The test results revealed that the defendant had a blood-alcohol content of .21, well over the legal limit of .08.

The defendant moved to suppress the blood-alcohol test results, arguing that under the U.S. Supreme Court case Missouri v. McNeely, warrantless blood draws were unconstitutional. The prosecution argued that this case arose before the McNeely decision was issued, that Nevada law applied to the case, and that the Nevada good-faith exception applied.

The procedural history of the case is somewhat complex, but ultimately, an Arizona appellate court held that the Nevada good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, and that the test-result evidence should not be suppressed. In so holding, the court first noted that the exclusionary rule is imposed as a consequence of illegal police violating the rights of the defendant and is designed to deter police misconduct.

The court concluded that the blood-draw was illegal under Arizona law, but legal under Nevada law. This was based on the application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The good-faith exception prevents the suppression of illegally seized evidence if the officer obtaining the evidence was acting in good faith when he came into possession of the evidence. Here, the court first held that Nevada law applied because that was where the blood was drawn. Additionally, it was a Nevada officer that first took possession of the defendant’s blood while he was in a Nevada hospital. The court went on to hold that there would be no deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule in this case because there was no misconduct involved. The court explained that the Nevada officer reasonably relied on the request of another law enforcement officer, which was done in good faith.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI offense, contact the dedicated Tempe DUI defense attorney, James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is an experienced criminal defense attorney with unrivaled knowledge, passion, and skill. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you face, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. 28-1381 – DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28-1382 –Extreme DUI Laws
• A.R.S. 28- 1388 Blood and breath tests: violation, classification, and admissible evidence
• A.R.S. 28- 1385 – License Suspension for DUI
• Arizona Department of Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division
• Missouri v. McNeely

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in an Arizona DUI case discussing whether a defendant’s consent to allow chemical testing of his blood was coerced, and thus invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer did not coerce the defendant’s consent by explaining to the defendant that his license would be suspended for 12 months if he refused testing.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence. After the defendant was arrested, the arresting officer requested the defendant consent to a blood draw. During that request, the officer explained that “Arizona law states that a person who operates a motor vehicle … gives consent to a test … for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content.” The officer also explained that “If you refuse, do not expressly agree to submit to, or do not successfully complete the tests, your Arizona driving privilege will be suspended.”

The defendant consented to the blood draw, and the test results showed that his blood-alcohol content was .142. The defendant was then charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

In a pre-trial motion to suppress, the defendant claimed that the test results should be excluded from evidence because they were obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the defendant argued that his consent was not voluntarily given and was coerced by the officer explaining that his license would be suspended if he refused testing.

The Court’s Opinion

The court held that by advising a motorist of the penalties of refusing a chemical test does not amount to coercion. In so holding, the court acknowledged that prior cases have held that an officer does coerce consent when he tells a motorist that he has no choice but to consent to chemical testing.

However, here, the court noted that the officer merely explained the defendant’s options to him, which happened to include the consequences of a refusal. The court explained that, ideally, an officer would first ask if the motorist consented to testing before explaining the consequences of refusal, but an officer’s failure to do so does not amount to coercion.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested for an Arizona DUI offense, Attorney James E. Novak can help. Attorney Novak is a dedicated criminal defense attorney with extensive experience handling Arizona DUI cases. Attorney Novak is intimately familiar with the complex laws surrounding Arizona drunk-driving cases, and puts that knowledge to use for each of his clients. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
• A.R.S.§ 28-1321

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Breath Tests, Implied Consent and the Exclusionary Rule in Arizona DUI Cases, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, February 25, 2019

Are Arizona DUI Checkpoints Legal?, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, February 12, 2019

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was pulled over after a police officer noticed that the car the defendant was driving did not have a temporary registration tag displayed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication. The defendant was placed under arrest for driving under the influence.

After the defendant’s arrest, the officer conducted an inventory search of the car, which was registered to the defendant’s sister. During the search, the officer located an eyeglasses case inside a coat pocket. Inside the eyeglasses cases was a pipe and some methamphetamine. The defendant was taken into the police station, and her blood was taken. The results came back showing that the defendant had methamphetamine in her blood. The defendant was then charged with transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a dangerous drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of DUI, and plead not guilty to the drug charges, which proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the prosecutor sought to admit evidence of the blood-test results indicating that the defendant had methamphetamine in her system. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to exclude this evidence.

The court determined that the evidence was admissible, but not as proof that the defendant possessed the drugs for sale. The court explained that by pleading not guilty of the drug offenses, the defendant was claiming she had no knowledge of the drugs in her car. The court explained that blood-test results showing she had methamphetamine in her system were relevant to the determination of whether the defendant knew that the same type of drug was in the car. Thus, although the prosecution was unable to present the defendant’s blood-test results as substantive evidence of her guilt, the evidence was admissible to establish her knowledge of the drugs.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drug Crime?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona drug crime, contact Attorney James E. Novak. Attorney Novak is a dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney with extensive experience representing clients in all types of cases, including Arizona DUIs as well as other offenses that may be charged in conjunction with a DUI. To learn more about how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the changes you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule your free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381
• A.R.S. section 13-3406

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Court Holds Reasonable Suspicion Exists to Pull Over Vehicle if Owner’s License Is Suspended, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, November 13, 2018

Arizona Has Some of the Harshest Penalties for Those Convicted of Driving Under the Influence, Even for First-Time Offenders, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, October 17, 2018

The Facts of the Case

Two men were taking their two-year-old cousin to the pharmacy by car. The driver parked the car, and each man grabbed one of the young child’s hands as they walked across the parking lot toward the entrance to the pharmacy. As they were walking, however, the young child broke free from the men and was struck by the defendant’s truck.

Police officers responded to the scene and immediately learned that the child had died from the collision. One officer approached the defendant, who was huddled over and clearly distraught. As the officer bent down to talk to the defendant, he claimed that the defendant had a “strong, pungent” odor of alcohol coming from her breath. When asked, the defendant responded that she had consumed two cans of beer earlier that day. The officer also noticed that the defendant’s eyes were watery and her face was flushed. However, the officer acknowledged that the defendant’s appearance may have been due to her distraught state and was not clearly evidence of intoxication. The officer then arrested the defendant.

The officer took the defendant to the station, obtained a search warrant to take the defendant’s blood, and then took a sample of the defendant’s blood. The test results showed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content was .201. The defendant unsuccessfully litigated a motion to suppress the blood evidence on several grounds, including that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. Ultimately, the defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of her motion to suppress, renewing her argument that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her. Specifically, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that she was intoxicated. The defendant noted the officer’s admission that her physical and emotional state may have been due to her grievous mindset, rather than intoxication.

The court disagreed, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion. The court explained that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, could lead a reasonable officer to the conclusion that the defendant was likely intoxicated. The court relied heavily on the “strong, pungent” odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, as well as her admission that she had consumed alcohol earlier in the day. The fact that there were potentially innocent explanations for the defendant’s appearance did not prevent the officer from considering her appearance, in conjunction with the other evidence, when concluding that she may have been intoxicated.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, you should reach out to dedicated Arizona DUI defense attorney James E. Novak. Attorney James Novak has decades of experience handling Arizona DUI cases, and has a deep understanding of both the substantive and procedural laws governing this area of law. Attorney Novak fights zealously on behalf of his clients, from the beginning of their case to the end. To learn more, and to speak with a member of our team about your case, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. section 28-1381

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Arizona Appellate Court Upholds DUI Conviction Over Defendant’s Operation Challenge, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 19, 2018

When Can an Officer Pull a Motorist Over Based on a Belief of Intoxication?, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, August 24, 2018

The Facts of the Case

A witness happened upon a vehicle that had crashed into a business’ entry gate. The witness saw the defendant turn off the engine and then slump over the wheel. The witness called 911, and the fire department came to assist the defendant.

The fire department personnel found the defendant unconscious, with no visible trauma, behind the wheel. They removed the defendant and took him to the hospital, where several tests were conducted, and again, no visible trauma was noted. The defendant was hooked up to a ventilator while doctors tried to figure out what was wrong with him. Hospital staff took the defendant’s blood for medical purposes and securely stored it. A nurse noted that the defendant’s breath smelled of alcohol.

Police, having heard the nurse’s observation that the defendant smelled of alcohol, retrieved a tube of the defendant’s blood and tested it. The defendant was then charged with DUI.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood evidence, arguing that the police seized his blood without a warrant or his consent. The trial court rejected the defendant’s argument and denied his motion. The defendant appealed.

The Appellate Decision

The court began its analysis by noting that the Fourth Amendment can come into play in blood-draw cases at three times: 1.) when blood is actually taken, 2.) taking blood and testing it, and 3.) taking the results of blood tests. In this case, the court explained the second situation was implicated because the police took blood that had been taken for medical purposes and conducted their own test.

Regardless of which of the three situations the police action implicated, the court explained that police must either obtain a warrant to seize a suspect’s blood or establish that there was probable cause as well as an exigency requiring the blood to be seized in advance of obtaining a warrant. The court explained that such an exigency is rarely present in a situation in which blood has already been taken and properly stored, since police could easily obtain a warrant and then test the stored blood at a later date.

Here, the court held that the warrantless testing of the defendant’s blood was done in violation of his constitutional rights because the police lacked exigent circumstances excusing their failure to obtain a warrant. Thus, the court ordered that the blood-test results be suppressed.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona DUI?

If you have recently been arrested and charged with an Arizona DUI, contact dedicated Tempe DUI defense lawyer James E. Novak. Attorney Novak has decades of experience representing those facing DUI and related charges. To learn how Attorney Novak can help you defend against the charges you are facing, call 480-413-1499 to schedule a free consultation today.

Additional Resources:

• Birchfield v. North Dakota

Other Articles of Interest from The Law Office of James Novak’s Phoenix DUI Blog: Arizona Appellate Court Upholds DUI Conviction Over Defendant’s Operation Challenge, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 19, 2018

Nearly 300 DUI Arrests Were Made in Arizona over 4th of July Weekend, Phoenix DUI Law Blog, July 9, 2018